Off Grid Home Blog

At AWEA’s supply chain workshop in Greensboro, North Carolina this week, the hotel security folks were on the alert—they had been warned that some anti-wind demonstrators from the Western part of the state were going to show up and were bringing fellow protesters from the adjacent state of Virginia.

But no demonstrators showed up. Maybe they realized that wind, which creates jobs and energy without pollution, is hard to be against, especially at a time when many Americans are still hurting economically.

There were about 400 attendees at the workshop and, judging by a show of hands, it appeared that at least half were new to the industry. They were the go-getter types who are trying to figure out how and where they could enter the growing industry. It’s hard to protest that kind of spirit—it’s pure America.

So far, North Carolina has no wind projects, but it does have the prospect of wind projects offshore and in the mountains in the western part of the state. It also has wind manufacturing facilities that employ more than 1,000 workers.

North Carolina also has experienced some controversy about whether wind turbines should be allowed on so-called ridge lines in the state’s western mountains, with some local legislators trying to enact a law that would ban all but the smallest turbines that could only be attached to individual residences.

Wind proponents in the state are appalled. “This is as close to a ban as they could get without saying so,” warned Dennis Scanlin of Appalachian State University in Boone, N.C.

Back at the workshop, where the demonstrators never appeared, the attendees were more focused on getting into the business. The last panel—always the hardest to get attendance for—included three case studies of companies that are creating manufacturing jobs in the southeast, including North Carolina. They did not make it sound easy. Finding a niche in the manufacturing process that, for example, has been based overseas, or is well-established here, takes research, ingenuity, and dedication.

Said Cheryl Richards of PPG Industries, which has retooled significantly to adapt its fiber glass expertise to wind energy: “You have to think through all the stages of product development. You have to be persistent. It’s not going to happen overnight.” Craig Lawson, Renewable Energy Business Development Manager for Burndy, a New Hampshire company with some manufacturing in this region and elsewhere, said, “It’s a matter of figuring out where you can fit into the supply chain, and how you can add value. You have to know who you are.”

Earlier, Pat Thacker, a supply chain expert with Areva Renewables, warned would-be entrants that they should enjoy the thrill of riding a roller coaster if they plan to enter the industry. “It tends to be an up and down market,” he said.

Considering the experience the industry has been through in the last few years, that is an understatement.

The bipartisan Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition today urged Congress to enact a renewable electricity standard (RES) so that the United States can take full advantage of the nation’s considerable wind energy resource.

“We offer our assistance in working with Congress and the administration to achieve one of the nation’s principal energy goals, energy independence, and increasing the role that wind energy plays in meeting that challenge,” wrote the coalition’s chairman, Iowa Democratic Gov. Chet Culver, and vice chairman, GOP Gov. Donald Carcieri of Rhode Island, in a letter to Congress. The group also sent a letter to President Obama.

Gov. Carceri noted that “This is the first set of comprehensive wind energy recommendations ever submitted to Congress by a group of the nation’s governors.”

The coalition includes governors from 29 states and has become an important group advocating for policies that promote wind energy. In general, states have been ahead of Congress in recognizing the value of wind energy–30 states, including the District of Columbia, have renewable standards, and many have taken additional steps to increase the use of wind energy and attract wind component manufacturers to their states.

A national RES is considered crucial to create additional demand for wind energy, and attract manufacturers. A national standard will also make it easier for the electric utility industry to meet renewable targets.

The House passed an RES last year as part of the comprehensive energy and climate bill, and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee included an RES in its energy bill.

In addition to an RES, the governors recommended development of new transmission infrastructure; full support for development of offshore wind projects; streamlined permitting for onshore and offshore wind projects; expanded cooperation between states and the Department of Energy and the wind industry to accelerate innovation; and extending the Treasury grant program while developing a long term production tax credit.

[b]Guest blog by AWEA’s Michael Goggin[/b]

Last Thursday, Portland TV station KATU failed the most elementary principles of journalism by biting hook, line, and sinker and taking a fossil-fuel industry front group’s false and misleading statements about wind energy at face value.

The news story begins by claiming that concerns about wind energy “have been raised by some.” Unfortunately, this “some” appears to only be staffer Todd Wynn at the Cascade Policy Institute.

Before refuting Mr. Wynn’s false claims point-by-point, it is instructive to trace the funding behind his employer. The Cascade Policy Institute is funded by the Cato Institute, the DC-based group founded by oil magnate Charles Koch whose current donors include ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute.

On to the point-by-point refutation of Mr. Wynn’s claims:

- “So when the wind blows, the dams stop generating electricity, and when the wind stops, the dams continue to generate electricity,” said Wynn. “So, in fact, wind power is just offsetting another renewable energy source. It’s not necessarily offsetting any fossil fuel generation.”

It shouldn’t take Einstein to tell you that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. When wind power allows a hydroelectric dam to reduce its output, the water that the dam would have used to produce electricity is stored behind the dam. That stored water is then used later to produce electricity during periods when electricity demand is higher or wind output is lower, offsetting electricity that would have been provided by a fossil fuel plant. In essence, the dam is acting as a giant battery, storing wind power when it isn’t needed and using it to offset fossil fuel generation when the power is needed.

- “… wind does not reduce carbon emissions, but instead, creates them. That’s because when wind blows, the dam – or fossil fuel – backs up. It doesn’t shut down, and it takes too long to start up. It’s like a car stopped at a red light: The engine is still running, and just like the car, this ’spinning reserve mode,’ as it’s called, consumes energy.”

One need only look at Mr. Wynn’s first quote above to see a major logical flaw in his arguments. As he explained above, hydroelectric dams are being used like giant batteries to accommodate changes in wind output. It would be difficult to identify the carbon emissions caused by using hydroelectric dams in this way, considering that hydroelectric dams don’t emit any carbon.

As for Mr. Wynn’s claim that if fossil fuel plants are used to accommodate wind’s added variability, they will somehow emit so much more carbon so as to completely erase the emissions savings of adding wind in the first place, we have a whole [url=http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Backup_Power.pdf]fact sheet on wind energy and backup power[/url] debunking the seriously flawed math one would have to use to make that claim.

The basic problem with Mr. Wynn’s claim is that the incremental grid variability introduced by wind plants is small and tends to occur over long periods of time, meaning it can be accommodated through the use of wind forecasts and slower response, “non-spinning” reserves. Non-spinning reserves come at a fraction of the cost and efficiency penalty of spinning reserves. As we explain in the fact sheet, even under very conservative assumptions and in a worst case scenario, the emissions associated with this efficiency penalty might equal at most 1 pound of CO2 for every 1,000 pounds of CO2 offset by the wind energy in the first place.

Moreover, in many situations the incremental variability of wind energy will force inflexible coal plants offline in favor of more flexible and lower-emitting natural gas plants, meaning that total emissions will be reduced by an even larger amount than was directly offset by the wind energy itself. In fact, in the article, Doug Johnson with the Bonneville Power Administration notes that “Natural gas is probably the next best backup to hydro because those facilities can ramp up and down very quickly and move with the wind just like the hydro system.”

The results of a recent multi-year study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory also found that wind energy produces major emissions savings by forcing coal generation offline. The study found that CO2 emissions decrease by more than 25% in scenarios in which 20% of electricity comes from wind energy and 37% in a 30% wind energy scenario, compared to a scenario in which our current generation mix was used to meet increasing electricity demand. This is because coal generation declined by around 23% from the business-as-usual case to the 20% wind cases, and by 35% in the 30% wind case.

Next time, KATU might want to do some more research before running with whatever a fossil-fuel funded front group tells them.

A huge challenge facing wind developers is how to co-exist with wildlife—and with the laws, regulations and permitting procedures that have been developed to protect it.

Two developments last week suggest different approaches for meeting that challenge. First was the Interior Department’s decision not to place the sage grouse on the endangered species list at this time. The second was the finalization of recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Federal Advisory Committee, a government-industry-environmentalist collaboration that for three years has been drafting guidelines aimed at facilitating wind energy development while still protecting wildlife.

Interior Secretary Salazar’s decision not to list the sage grouse as an endangered species leaves the bird’s protection to the states for now. In the state of Wyoming, one of the states where the bird is found, so-called core areas designated by the state will remain off limits to development, including wind, to protect the sage grouse and their habitat.

The problem with the Wyoming approach is that it is not based on extensive information about how wind projects impact sage grouse. “We don’t have the information about how wind affects sage grouse,” says Laurie Jodziewicz, AWEA’s manager of siting policy. “And we have little opportunity to do research because you can’t build in the core areas.” She said wind developers will be working with state officials to explore possible changes in the current state policies.

The FAC guidelines, which are being forwarded to Salazar for his approval, take a different approach. The representatives of the wind industry, wildlife groups and the Fish and Wildlife Service developed a “tiered” approach to development. That means developers will choose an area for possible development, assess the potential wildlife conflicts, and, if they still wish to develop it, propose a series of measures to limit the impact on wildlife.

The guidelines also call for monitoring the impact during construction and after construction to make sure the impacts are in line with what was predicted before the project was built.

“The guidelines borrow from the practices large developers have already adopted when they make siting decisions, and put it in a format that everyone can use,” said Jodziewicz.

Wind developers know they have formidable obstacles to surmount, especially in the Western states, before they can develop in areas with wildlife concerns. But they are hoping that by getting out in front of the issue, and working with wildlife groups and government officials now, they can maximize their chances of success.

The [url=http://greeneconomypost.com/women-in-wind-asolar-energy-8579.htm]Green Economy Post[/url] is highlighting the contributions of prominent women in the wind and solar industries, including several closely connected to AWEA: Jan Blittersdorf, CEO and President of NRG Systems, Rachel Shimshak, the Director of the Renewable Northwest Project (RNP), AWEA Board Member Karen Conover, CEO of DNV Global Energy Concepts, and Lisa Daniels, Executive Director of Windustry, a member of AWEA’s Community Wind Working Group Steering Committee.

[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2568/4057383091_cd7ee2b3eb_m.jpg[/img]

On May 4, 2007, a tornado touched down for a whopping 22 minutes in Greensburg, Kansas. The small town in the southwest corner of the state is a mere 1.7 miles wide, but the twister left a path of destruction two miles across, engulfing 95% of the town’s roads, buildings, businesses and homes.

Nearly two and a half years later, this same town showcased its avowed commitment to rebuilding “better and greener” with the groundbreaking ceremony of the 12.5-MW John Deere Wind Farm. Although just one of “Greensburg Green Town’s” many endeavors to rebuild in a sustainable way, this particular project illustrates a steadfast dedication and cooperation on behalf of local, state, and federal governments, private business, and citizens.

The John Deere Greensburg Wind Farm consists of ten Suzlon turbines, which will produce enough electricity to power 4,000 homes – satisfying 100% of the electricity needs of the citizens of Greensburg. Kansas Power Pool made its second wind power purchase agreement with the Greensburg project, allowing residents to acquire their electricity directly from the wind turbines in their backyards. This Farm will also help Kansas surpass its statewide renewable electricity standard of 10% by 2011 and it puts them on track to reach 20% renewables by 2020.

Vice President of John Deere Renewables, Dave Drescher, called this Farm “the most special community wind project” at the ceremony last Friday, and I couldn’t agree more. This community transformed a devastating incident into an opportunity not only for innovation and creativity, but also to exemplify the strength of the human spirit. The residents of Greensburg have willingly chosen to lessen their carbon footprints and in doing so, have created a new culture of environmentally aware and engaged citizens. It’s no wonder that President Obama called this town a “global example” in his very first address to Congress.

Greensburg has much to be proud of in celebrating the groundbreaking of this wind farm and its residents should be similarly commended for their resiliency and tenacity in creating a “green” paradigm for other towns around the world.

[b]By Anyah Dembling[/b]

There was a bright spot on transmission today: the Obama Administration produced a memo of understanding (MOU to the wonks) that will streamline decisionmaking on siting new transmission on federal lands.

This is very significant because much of the new transmission is needed in the West, where most federal lands are. and because federal agencies don’t usually cooperate without many meetings and studies. As a result, lengthy delays in obtaining permits from federal agencies to build transmission lines across federal land are a major barrier to accessing the country’s best renewable energy resources.

AWEA CEO Denise Bode voiced enthusiastic support. “The wind industry applauds the Obama administration for recognizing the need to address transmission barriers and enacting a measure to improve the speed and ease with which transmission can be constructed across federal lands. This MOU is an important step towards putting more of our abundant renewable energy resources to use, powering American homes and businesses with clean, domestic sources of energy while creating thousands of high-paying jobs here in America,” she said.

But this is not the only action needed, Bode suggested. “The policy announced today is an important complement to legislative measures that have been proposed in the Senate to update policies that govern how transmission is planned, paid for, and permitted. Investment in our grid has lagged because our transmission policies have failed to keep up with changes in the electric sector, like the growing need to access renewable energy resources…We urge Congress, the Administration, and state and federal regulatory authorities to take further action to streamline transmission permitting processes and implement broad transmission cost allocation policies.”

Transmission remains the single biggest obstacle to realizing the full potential of wind and other forms of renewable energy. The latest proof of this thesis is a decision announced late last week by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The case involved two utilities and several wind generators in the Midwest, and the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO), the independent entity established by FERC to regulate transmission in a broad area of the Midwest.

The wind generators wanted to connect to the grid, to deliver power to their customers. The companies that operate the transmission in that region, Otter Tail Power Co. and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU), a subsidiary of MDU Resources Group, wanted the wind companies to pay almost all the costs for the transmission improvements needed to carry the extra electricity. But the wind companies (and AWEA) argued that since other power generators would benefit from the grid improvements, the costs should be spread more broadly among MISO’s users.

MISO, the grid operator, and FERC, which oversees MISO, sided with the utilities. Their decision–announced quietly late on a Friday afternoon– illustrates the crux of the “cost allocation” issue that has been a stumbling block for transmission improvements: new transmission infrastructure for wind and other renewables can only be built if the costs are allocated broadly among all transmission users. But getting that accomplished is difficult, if not impossible, under the existing rules (and players) of the game.

AWEA’s Rob Gramlich, senior vice president for public policy, expressed the frustration felt by many in the wind industry, especially since there were less drastic solutions available for solving the problems faced by Otter Tail, and MDU. “This decision is baffling. How did we go from a problem for just two small utilities to a region-wide policy that hinders the transmission investment and renewable energy development that all four Commissioners say they want? It is not hard to guess what cost allocation plan the anti-transmission utilities in MISO will continue to push.”

He added, “At some point FERC and the states will need to exercise some leadership,” and noted that in its ruling last week, the FERC commissioners said their decision was an “interim approach” and that MISO was working on a new cost allocation system that they hope to unveil next year.

Anti-wind groups have been on the attack in Europe, questioning the accuracy of wind use statistics, especially in those countries where wind is making a significant contribution–like Denmark. In response to recent attacks about its practice of exporting wind-generated electricity to its neighbors, the Danish government’s wind agency published this comment in a local newspaper:
[quote]In reality part of the wind energy is ‘stored up’ in Norwegian and Swedish hydro-electric reservoirs and returned to the Danish consumers at other times. The Nordic electricity trade benefits all electricity consumers in Northern Europe.

Wind power is exported at market prices in line with all other forms of electricity and the revenue from the electricity trade is shared between Denmark and the recipient country. The average selling price for wind generated electricity was 0.04 to 0.07 DKr./kWh less than the selling price on electricity generated by centre and local cogeneration plants in the period 2005-2007. Consider this to be the price of storing wind power at the Nordic hydro-electric plants. That we would be giving the electricity away is a misapprehension.

Danish electricity consumers have supported wind power with an average of 1.3 bill DKr. a year from 2005-2008 corresponding to 0.035 DKr./kWh. For a household with an electricity consumption of 3.500 kWh this has meant an extra cost of 120 DKr. (≈ $24) a year – two or three times less than Weekensavisen claims using Sharman as source.
[/quote]

The following correspondence received today from Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of Renew Wisconsin, a group that has been pressing the case for clean energy in that state for a number of years.

[quote]Greetings–

As you know, I believe that the PSC [Public Service Commission of Wisconsin] proceedings on Wisconsin Electric’s Glacier Hills wind project will generate much of the factual foundation for the forthcoming rulemaking on wind permitting standards. I would like to call your attention to testimony submitted by three expert witnesses hired on behalf of the applicant. These documents were filed this Tuesday. The witnesses are.

Richard Larkin – State Certified Real Estate Appraiser. His [url=http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=121872]testimony[/url] rebuts CWESt property values “study.”

William Roberts – PhD in Epidemiology, Former faculty member with the Medical College of Wisconsin (Dept. of Preventative Medicine), former Oklahoma State Epidemiologist. His [url=http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=121871]testimony[/url] discusses Nina Pierpont’s “research” and rebuts CWESt’s acoustical consultant.

Geoff Leventhall – acoustical consultant, PhD in Acoustics. His [url=http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=121870]testimony[/url] discusses low frequency noise and rebuts CWESt’s acoustical consultant.

Even though these filings take the form of rebuttal testimony, they can stand on their own. You need not read the filings they rebut in order to make sense out of what they’re saying. Of all the documents I’ve read over the years that address wind energy impacts on human health and property values, this group of submission is the strongest IMO. The value of these documents to future wind development in North America is inestimable.

These filings will be entered into the record when the technical hearings begin on November 2nd.

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin
Wisconsin Wind Working Group
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
www.renewwisconsin.org[/quote]

To paraphrase Harry Truman, we don’t give the anti-wind folks hell–we just tell the truth, and they think it’s hell.